I received the following message from the government. It sounds to me as if our worries have been addressed, but others may have further information:

+++++

The e-petition 'Stop Legalised Theft of Copyrighted Works' signed by you recently reached 27,880 signatures and a response has been made to it.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: This petition appears to address a measure in the recent Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERR Act) concerning orphan works. In fact, the Act ensures that the work of photographers and illustrators cannot simply be taken by others through a number of strong protections for creators� interests. Orphan works are copyright works (such as books, photographs, films and music) for which one or more of the copyright owners cannot be found. Without the permission of all the rights-holders these works can only be used lawfully to a very limited extent. There are millions of such works held in the nation�s museums, archives and libraries. With regard to the removal of data about the ownership of the copyright work (metadata), it is already a civil infringement under UK copyright law to knowingly and without authority strip metadata from a copyright work. If the infringer communicates the work to the public it may be a criminal offence. It may also be a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 if the infringer claims to be the rights holder. The Government wants to enable these culturally and economically valuable works to be used while protecting the interests of the missing rights-holders. Section 77 of the ERR Act contains powers to allow the Secretary of State to appoint a body to license the use of orphan works. Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply to the government-appointed authorising body for a licence. As part of that process they must undertake a diligent search for the rights-holder which will then be verified by the Government appointed independent authorising body. The absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work �orphan� or allow its use under the orphan works scheme. Only once the diligent search for the rights-holder has been verified by the authorising body and after the licence fee has been paid will a licence to use the orphan work be issued. Licences will be for specified purposes and subject to a licence fee which is payable up-front at a rate appropriate to the type of work and type of use. The licence fee will then be held for the missing rights-holder to claim. If the work is not genuinely orphan then the rights-holder should be found by the search. If the search is not properly diligent, no licence will be issued. The proposal for an orphan works scheme was the subject of a formal written consultation and extensive informal consultation with all stakeholders, including several representatives from photography organisations. There were a number of genuine concerns which have been addressed by various safeguards, such as the verification of the diligent search and the requirement for remuneration to be set aside. However, some media articles have contained a number of inaccuracies about the scheme. Under these powers copyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection. The powers do not allow any person simply to use a photograph or any other work if they cannot find the rights-holder. A Working Group has been set up by the industry-led Copyright Hub to consider the issue of metadata and try to obtain cross-industry agreement on ensuring that metadata is not removed from copyright works. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

View the response to the e-petition

Thanks,

HM Government e-petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/

Sounds reasonable to me. I guess it takes away major concerns. I am sure someone else will find something to poke a hole in it.



---------------
Interesting comment Sue.

They may be protected by the condition that agreement is governed by the laws of (insert where the agency/service provider is legally located). I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

I think this whole Orphan Works thing makes a good case for having a personal website with all my stock images on it. Any "diligent search" will result in my photo being found online.

I think this whole Orphan Works thing makes a good case for having a personal website with all my stock images on it. Any "diligent search" will result in my photo being found online.

I never thought about that, but it sure makes a lot of sense. 

"The absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work �orphan� or allow its use under the orphan works scheme."

Important fact that is often missed. Orphan works is not about stealing your digital images and trying to use them for free. It's all about lost attribution, archives, art and library materials from a century ago!

As most here know, you can remove the metadata but the camera id and serial number stay.

As for agencies being forced to leave metadata on images, especially copyright if nothing else, I'm all for it. But for the right reasons, not some witch hunt.

I appreciate your concern, but I think any savvy image thief can easily find that information on the internet, I just did one search and the first search result gives me instructions on how to do that